What are the circumstances that guarantee trustworthiness in statements made by a manager and a supervisor?

The usual circumstances that may guarantee trustworthiness were identified in R v. B. (K.G.), 1993 CanLII 116 (SCC), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 740, at para. 120, as “a warning, oath, solemn affirmation or solemn declaration and videotape record, or sufficient substitutes”. In this case, none of those circumstances are present, nor do I find any sufficient substitutes. Neither the manager nor the other supervisor made any notes of these statements. I do not criticize either individual in so saying since there would have been no compelling reason for either of them to have made such notes. That fact, however, does not change the consequence that in assessing these statements we are left to rely on the memories of these two individuals alone. Further, neither of these individuals were asked about these statements until November, 2006 when they were first interviewed by the police. No videotape record was made of those interviews, although an audiotape was made. The fact is, then, that the first recording of the recollections of these individuals regarding these statements is some eight months after they were made. The resulting problems of the recollections of these individuals are not only predictable, they are apparent from those interviews. There are a number of “I don’t know” or “I don’t recall” or “I got the impression that” and like answers that demonstrate the vagueness of their recollections.